This is a response to the article posted by Dr. Ryan Maue here titled: CEI misses the boat on the need for the National Weather Service. Ryan’s response is in the comments, and here is the key clause:
…The CEI should think about their statement about the “private collection” and ownership of weather data. How did that work for the UK Met-Office + Hadley Center with Phil Jones’ climate data? (climate data is weather data, btw)
By Iain Murray and David Bier
The most difficult task free-market advocates often face is in addressing the duties the government has already assumed. Who will provide education? Who will deliver the mail? Who will coordinate airline flights? The knee-jerk reaction is generally that it is too difficult for the private sector to provide these services. Our recent op-ed [“Do We Really Need a National Weather Service?”], in which we argued that the private sector could provide the services provided by the National Weather Service (NWS), met precisely that reaction.
Each response seemed to conclude that we wanted the NWS’ services to disappear. That is analogous to saying that advocates of privatizing the U.S. Postal Service want to end mail delivery. Or that proponents (like CEI) of Federal Aviation Administration privatization want to end air traffic control. Such a suggestion would indeed be “laughable,” as some critics put it, but we never suggested that.
Therefore, most of the responses simply attacked a straw man. On reflection, we should have been more explicit that we were calling for the privatization of the government’s civilian weather services, not their outright abolition. Our piece was too easy to misinterpret.
Nearly all the responses dismissed the notion that the services of the NWS could be provided privately. Yet Britain’s Meteorological Office is already a self-funding, commercial entity, and the British government is now considering selling it to a private corporation, much as the Canadian government sold its air traffic control (ATC) service to the now award-winning NavCanada.
Private weather services often rely on NWS data. But we repeat that no one (to our knowledge) wants to shut down NWS services. The existence of many private weather agencies demonstrates a significant demand for this information, and the fact that they do more with the data and provide even more accurate forecasts strongly suggests that private entities would improve on the data collection functions the NWS currently provides. There is no intrinsic reason why the infrastructure for this data collection function should be publicly owned. Our critics have advanced none, other than the fact that it is currently publicly owned.
Historically, privatization has led to more investment in a service or industry, not less. For example, the privatization of water utilities in Britain almost doubled investment in that vital service — and increased quality, as well. The UK Laboratory of the Government Chemist has seen a fivefold increase in its number of staff since privatization.
Some responses discussed NOAA, the agency that oversees the NWS, and other government agencies which were not referenced in our piece. To be clear, we do not envision private planes replacing all military reconnaissance flights, as some (including Dr. Maue) suggested, but military data collection is not incompatible with a NWS privatization plan. The private sector owners could – and perhaps should – pay the military for the information.
Some have argued that the private sector could not afford to purchase the assets of the NWS. If that is the case(and we doubt it is), then the NWS can be sold as either one or a number of companies via IPO.
Either way, the sale of the NWS would bring in substantial revenue for the government at a time we are told it needs it most. At the very least, the NWS should begin to operate as a Performance-Based Organization, charging for its services. That will allow private companies to decide whether or not they are receiving value for money. If they are not, we will see more competition, and therefore increased accuracy, in data collection.
Even when the government stands in the way by means of regulation, that is advanced as justification for more government. Accuweather’s Mike Smith argues that, “[C]urrent federal policy (set by the FCC) will not allow private sector companies to run 10cm weather radars. For technical reasons, 10cm are vital in measuring precipitation. We must have a federal entity for that.” Why? The reason for the ban is unclear, but if the NWS already gets an exception to FCC rules, a private competitor could be granted one as well. If there are genuine national security or interference issues, then a rigorous licensing procedure respecting those concerns should suffice.
It may surprise some to learn that privatization is not new to the NWS. Over the years, the Service has divested such programs as direct commercial radio and television broadcasts, newspaper weather page preparation, agricultural forecasts, and the fire weather service. The latter two were privatized as recently as the mid-1990s. In each case, government officials simply decided that government had no real business providing the service. Our suggestion simply follows that logic.
The arguments against privatization focus on the role the government already plays, as if the service would disappear otherwise. This flawed logic is trotted whenever government monopolies are criticized. The National Weather Service is not exceptional. If people demand weather forecasts and advisories, and government gets out of the business, the market will provide.
Iain Murray is Vice President at the Competitive Enterprise Institute with considerable experience in privatization. David Bier is a Research Associate at CEI.
We’ve politicized the weather. The next step is obviously to commercialize it. Let’s all enjoy a $1 tax break while we pay a subscription fee for a weather service that will tell us the big one’s on its way and we need to tune in to learn all about it and some other stuff we might want to buy.
I just can’t wait.
There is a very simple business model for the NWS. Rather than provide the service, the NWS contract the service out at regional levels to the most competitive bidder. This would most certainly improve service and reduce prices. As soon as any provider gets too fat or lazy, they will be replaced by a more competitive bidder.
As things are now, there is no competition to the federal bureaucracy. The politicians come and go, and they take the heat and pay the price for mistakes of the bureaucracy. The bureaucrats remain between governments, no matter how wasteful or inefficient they run the country.
If instead the government services were provided via a bidding process, then the only real problem is corrupt bidding, which there is plenty of, but it is much easier to expose. The people have a means to deal with the Halliburton’s – they can vote corrupt officials out of office – or in some cases even jail them. They can’t vote out inefficient bureaucrats.
If all bureaucrats are inefficient then you can’t even fire them, because each is working just a hard as the next. That is why anyone that is hard working is soon drummed out of the federal bureaucracy, they are setting a bad example.
Everyone in government knows you must get rid of hard workers or you own job will be on the line. So pretty quickly everyone starts talking behind the hard workers back. Inventing reasons to get rid of the hard worker. They just don’t have what it takes to fit in. Not a team player. Everyone heard the hard worker running down the manager.
Want to succeed in the federal workplace? Make sure that you are just as lazy and ineffective as everyone else. Otherwise they will pretty quickly make sure you are gone.
Anyone still using a rotary phone can pine for a government agency or government monopoly. The rest of us can’t wait to see the improvement in weather data collection a free market would bring.
What would happen to surface stations? Would the various private companies around the US operate them according to their own rules? Would they be able to replace expensive accurate equipment with cheaper (more profitable) devices? Will there be any regulation (by the government, WMO, or whom?). You can see how this would be a problem for climate research when all the regulation being striven for now is reversed. Let alone that people would have to pay for the data rather than getting it free in real time. Perhaps these companies will even charge each other for US data, or compete with multiple station networks represented at each city, which would be highly inefficient. It is easy to foresee problems, even on just a few minutes thought.
When the Koch brothers purchase the NWS, creating National Weather Systems, Inc., is when the goodness starts. Do climate scientists want data? Tough, go to your friends at CRU. Hurricane headed for the East Coast? How much is a forecast worth to NYC? Hey, that satellite cost us plenty, pay up!
That’s how the world should be.
“Who will provide education? ”
It is NOT the government’s job to do anything with education. It is wrong for them to think that there is any need for all education to be the same. It is up to the states to figure out how to educate the citizens. This makes for open competition between the states to see who can produce the best educated adults. People will migrate to the best states to settle and raise families. It leads to mediocrity to have a Federal system and takes away one of the responsibilities of the states.
The Department of Education should be dissolved and all strings attached to Federal funding canceled. If funding from that level is needed, it has to be no strings attached—that’s how the Fed got into the education business in the first place, by taking control of little parts first.
The problem I have with privatizing the weather service is that I believe all of us have a right to free access to weather data. I am a pretty hardcore fiscal conservative and believe in the power of the free markets, but the weather is not owned by anyone and nor should the data concerning it belong to anyone. For the same reason, I was against Major League Baseball’s attempt to hijack fastasy baseball statistics under the claim that they owned the rights to the players and that their names should not be freely available in an online game when they could easily make a killing selling those names. Sorry…data on a free item (the existence of baseball or the existence of weather) is not something that should be bought and paid for. I have a right to free access to the numerical weather prediction models, the current and archived temperature, precipitation, wind and solar insolation data we have, the Reanalysis data, and all other potential research grade information regarding weather science and observation. You cannot own the sky nor the numerical descriptions thereof.
JK says:
August 31, 2011 at 9:07 pm
“When the Koch brothers…” Oh brother…here we go again.
Look, JK – do you like corporations or not? If not, please do not use products or services from any of the following:
Apple, Microsoft, HP, Twitter, Facebook, ATT, Verizon, T-Mobile, Sprint, Cisco Systems (which means no internet for you), Comcast, GE, … and so forth….
Even STARBUCKS is a corporation! Oh the humanity!!
SABR Matt says:
August 31, 2011 at 11:48 pm
“The problem I have with privatizing the weather service is that I believe all of us have a right to free access to weather data.”
A “right” is defined as something one can exercise without requiring anyone else to do anything. Since someone else must work to provide the weather data it is not a right to have that data. The same can be said for medical care. However, it does make sense for weather data to be widely disseminated to the benefit of all which is why I believe it should be paid for by the government. As I posted earlier, if the government is going to use public funds to help those recover from weather events, then the government has the obligation to keep the public informed of upcoming weather events so people can do what they can to keep loss of property and life as low as possible.
Right now that data is the property of USA taxpayers. I don’t know who decided to allow non-USA taxpayers FREE access to our property but I can sure guess it came from one of the countless liberal Congresses and liberal hack bureaucrats. This goes for NASA and countless other taxpayer funded agencies as well. Many of these red ink operations could be made solvent simply by charging non-taxpayers for this information that we taxpayers actually paid for. We buy the satellites and place them in orbit and then rain free data upon the rest of the world out of the goodness of our hearts but at the cost of trillions in red ink. Lots of thankless people out there all around the world that should get a bill in the mail if you ask me. Of course I would also do the same with all federal aid to foreign countries as well, convert all past grants to loans and start collecting it with interest. A thorough federal audit is certainly in order. Anyway, unlike you I don’t feel I have a right to no-cost access to other nations data paid for by other nations taxpayers or slave labor.
You conveniently do not mention where you are from, but it cannot be the USA as seen by the following comments you make …
Many people here have over 50% ripped out of their paycheck just for Federal and FICA alone. Those that lose 35% + 15% = 50% before they even see one dime of their hard work then get to pay state, local, sales, property, school and a myriad of others. You know nothing about us and you excel at demonstrating it. Taxes are everywhere here, everywhere! It is almost a parody now of what our revolution was about. Here is a partial primer …
Sales Tax
School Tax
Liquor Tax
Luxury Tax
Excise Taxes
Property Tax
Cigarette Tax
Medicare Tax
Inventory Tax
Real Estate Tax
Well Permit Tax
Fuel Permit Tax
Inheritance Tax
Road Usage Tax
CDL license Tax
Dog License Tax
State Income Tax
Food License Tax
Vehicle Sales Tax
Gross Receipts Tax
Social Security Tax
Service Charge Tax
Fishing License Tax
Federal Income Tax
Building Permit Tax
IRS Interest Charges
Hunting License Tax
Marriage License Tax
Corporate Income Tax
Personal Property Tax
Accounts Receivable Tax
Recreational Vehicle Tax
Workers Compensation Tax
Watercraft Registration Tax
Telephone Usage Charge Tax
Telephone Federal Excise Tax
Telephone State and Local Tax
IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax
Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax
Gasoline Tax (currently 44.75 cents per gallon)
Utility Taxes Vehicle License Registration Tax
Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Taxes
Telephone Recurring and Nonrecurring Charges Tax
We have 50 states yes, certainly a few are pissant but some of them all by themselves rank high as separate countries economically and could easily kick your un-named country’s butt. But you miss the point, I mean you just don’t get it at all. The States came first, they and their citizens created the FedGov, but they did not do this as a replacement for themselves. You cry for uniformity, we (most of us) will die before uniformity. Never gonna happen. There is meant to be differences between our states, not uniformity. And one of the reasons health care is expensive is that almost every hospital and doctor office is state of the art, our worst ones would be welcomed in many other parts of the world. Another substantial reason for high costs is that thanks to liberal nitwits, we have between 15 and 35 million illegal aliens running around (more than the entire legal population of many countries!). These people expect and receive health care they did not pay for. Why don’t you do us both a favor and invite them to your paradise?
That is the most strange thing I have read in a while. Why would any foreigner be concerned with the National Guard maintained by any State in the USA (aside from some nefarious enemy military planning)?
Absolutely right on! This is a no-brainer with no downside whatsoever. Dismantle the Department of Education immediately. There is no reason at all for this 100% waste of money.
A simple formula is to eliminate any FedGov functions that are also/better done by the States. FedGov should not do anything that the States can do. This is the inverse of the Constitution where the States literally said: okay FedGov, here are the chores you are offloading from we the States (Military, Currency, Foreign Relations …), we will not be doing them anymore.. FedGov took those as planned and then started usurping countless other things. This is where real change must occur, or else.
Okay, I’ve heard all the arguments against privatization except one. When you offer up weather forecasts for profit by private companies, you get the best forecast money can buy. For instance, if I want to sell tickets to see a NASCAR race or a golf tournament, I’m going to purchase my forecast for the event from the company who promises the best forecast, not the real one. That folks is where your lawsuits come in. And if I’m in a car accident and I claim it was caused by adverse weather and being sued, then I definitely want to be able to purchase that climate record from the company that agrees with me for a price. Great idea, who could be against putting forecasts up for sale and getting the best forecast money can buy.
Blade:
Way off topic, but very entertaining discussion. BTW, that’s quite a hocky stick you’re building with your tax list…
We might mention to our friend that the National Guards are largely funded by Federal money and that they are a huge component of our national military reserves. Guard troops served in Korea and Viet Nam; they serve today in Iraq and Afghanistan. And they are legally subject to federal control at any time. (Review ‘Eisenhower,’ ‘Little Rock, Arkansas’.
Point of note – the NWS little to do with the design, purchase or operation of the weather satellites. That is done by their sister organization; NESDIS (National Environmental Satellite Data and Information Service). Both come under NOAA. NESDIS operates & processes the satellite imagery and information (99.8% data throughput @ur momisugly $10-12 million annually, BTW) & provides it to the NWS…who missanalyses the data & makes the bad forecast 😉
The great NOAA budget bloat, as is with most US Govt organizations, is not in the lower workers doing all the practical work (meteorologists & techs) but in the upper management & organizational hirarchy that sucks most of the operational budgetary money. The management will cut the lower level operations to maintain & grow the upper level empires.
Jeff
Peter Nuhn says:
September 1, 2011 at 6:51 am http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/31/government-funding-of-the-national-weather-service-a-response-to-our-critics/#comment-733856
Sorry Peter . . . . But, insurers and reinsurers will buy the forcast that has the potential of reaping the most profit . . . which was evidenced in the State Insurance Plan in Florida . . . in the past decade . . . and without a detection . . . until another actuary with integrity pointed out the scam . . . oh sorry . . . I mean oversight!
don says:
August 31, 2011 at 7:10 pm http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/31/government-funding-of-the-national-weather-service-a-response-to-our-critics/#comment-733542
If Yellowstone were privatized the capitalists would not use it for camping they would mine it and sell every scrap of thermal energy . . . and it would be private property (no one allowed except the owners and their “guests”. . . . it would be exploited for it resources . . . all it’s resources.
The one thing I will say is, people working in private companies will probably do a better job, as they will have a brief to work to, timescales and a client to satisfy and expect internal and external review of their work down to the very detail – scentists do not have such pressures, they tend to focus on doing as many papers as possible (quantity not quality) and keeping the their funding up (which is normally tied to the number of papers).
As long as the data maintained by the private company is still public it would probably yeild better results.
Blade says (ehh?) Many people here have over 50% ripped out of their paycheck just for Federal and FICA alone. Those that lose 35% + 15% = 50% before they even see one dime of their hard work then get to pay state, local, sales, property, school and a myriad of others.
Yes, must be hundreds of those, that get almost all of their paycheck in the highest tax bracket (that would mean greater than $372,951 for almost all their income). Minus hedge fund managers, etc., that only pay the capital gains rate. Of course, even thought their upper bracket rates have been going down, they are very load whiners are they not.
Luckily, looking through your (somewhat questionable) list, I see many ways to avoid those taxes. Heck, just quit smoking and stay single!
There is a different tax rate for earned income and passive income. Passive income having the lower rate. It is the reason everyone should strive to go from employee to small business owner to large business owner to investor. Yes, for those who recognize this it is Rich Dad/Poor Dad.
@jakers:
He didn’t even go into the 33+% imbedded tax in every product bought on the store shelf. Who do you think pays the companies part of the FICA and all the corporate taxes – the consumer. So you buy a product for $10 on the store shelf, $3 of it goes straight to the government coffers. Then the local and state government gets 60-70 cents on top of that. That’s after paying all the personal taxes. People don’t even know how much tax they pay on a daily basis.
First the Air Force and Navy run several joint programs with the National Weather Service including the Nexrad & ASOS programs. If the National Weather Service went out of they would no longer provide weather data to the Dept of Defense or to the FAA. Could a private entity do it? Yes they could do it if they used the NWS equipment. However if a Private Firm goes on strike or walks off the job it would cripple the Airline Industry. Remember what happened with Reagan and the Air Traffic Controllers, who do you think monitors the weather for the FAA? The NWS.
The NWS provides a service and its a rather important for people who live in area’s of the United States with severe weather (Hurricanes, Tornados, Flooding, and severe storms). In my opinion government including the weather service should have its budget reduced and learn to do more with less. But getting rid of the National Weather Service would be a scary thought its like asking people to pay for the local Fire Department. People wouldn’t do it… Because there house isn’t going to burn down, and there house its gonna be in the path of a hurricane or hit by lightning.
As for Accuweather they could not provide the country with Data, because the data they get they get from the National Weather Service. You want to know who else buys its data from the National Weather Service????? Merrill Lynch.